Infosys tells Indian stock exchange: We haven't seen any evidence yet for whistleblower claims

So there

Outsourcing giant Infosys has told the Indian National Stock Exchange that whistleblowers have offered no evidence to go with their claims of corruption and false accounting.

The letter (PDF) to the deputy manager of listing compliance, Sonal Suri, also attempts to justify the delay in informing India's stock exchange about the complaint.

The allegations appeared in the media on 21 October, prompting a 15 per cent drop of the firm's stock on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Just two days later, the outsourcer said a class action suit had been launched against it.

The claims centre on alleged financial impropriety. Anonymous letters were sent to a board director at Infosys and the Washington DC-based Office of Whistleblower Protection.

Infosys knew of the complaints at the end of September but did not tell the Indian regulator about it until the end of October, when newspaper reports surfaced.

The letter, sent this morning, said: "Given the circumstances at this stage, where there is complete absence of prima facie evidence and the Anonymous Complaints are still under investigation, the Company is not in a position to determine the concreteness, credibility and materiality of the anonymous complaints. In light of the above, no disclosure under Regulation 30 of the LODR [Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements[ Regulations is required to be made."

Infosys said the letters included claims of audio recordings and emails in support of the allegations.

The company's Audit Committee has hired the law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. to investigate the claims. It also talked to Ernst & Young to review business processes on the basis of the allegations made.

Infosys lost its previous CEO following allegations of weak corporate governance and overly generous pay packets.

We asked the firm to clarify how its various internal investigations are progressing, what the current situation is with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the US and about the class-action case brought by shareholders, but it declined to comment. ®